In
1828 Charles Darwin’s father sent him to Christ’s College
in Cambridge in hopes of his son’s becoming a clergyman. But Charles
had a different idea. He extrapolated that, apart from God, man’s
efforts promise to yield a future utopia wherein only the fittest among
favored survivors rule.[1]

By
identifying the best human specimens for reproduction and, conversely,
by isolating and eventually eliminating those human specimens tending
to impede or otherwise contaminate the process, Darwin’s brainstorm,
natural selection, is really deliberate selection. And who better to
select than Darwin and his colleague-cousin Francis Galton—you
know, the one who coined the term “eugenics” for “good
birth”[2]

Darwin
and Galton were wellborn-and-bred British elitists of their day. Although
both rejected its democratic elements, the cousins identified with the
dark side of the Enlightenment. Some semblance of science suited their
common cause, and Darwin’s legendary treatise filled the bill
nicely. Enter, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

Theory
or Fact?

To
qualify as observable, measurable, repeatable scientific fact, a theory
must first withstand the rigors of laboratory testing. Problem is, the
origin of a new species from a pre-existing one has never been directly
observed (not even once); and then there’s that problematic “missing”
link. Barefaced absence of prerequisite transitional species in the
fossil record baffled even Darwin, and the British Museum (says fossil
expert Dr. Etheridge) is “full of proofs” that Darwin’s
theory is “utterly false.”[3]

Australian
molecular biologist Dr. Michael Denton argues, “Unguided trial-and-error
is unable to reach anything but the most trivial of ends.”[4]
Indeed, Italian biologist Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur soundly debunked
Darwin’s theory of spontaneous generation. Even Darwin admitted
the ludicrousness of explaining the “existence of a single peacock
feather” resulting from some spontaneous, random process. In a
letter to Dr. Asa Gray, Darwin further admitted, “Imagination
must fill up very wide blanks.” Conversely, naturalists routinely
ridicule a so-called “God of the gaps.”[5]

For
Darwin’s theory to fly, random genetic changes must provide advantage
at every turn in an organism’s struggle to survive. This is not
only highly improbable; it’s impossible. Even the evolutionary
apologist British zoologist Julian Huxley ceded that a mutation signifies
abnormality, not evolutionary advancement. Yet we’re expected
to overlook the fact that distinctive human attributes (i.e., language,
posture/ gait, moral/ religious sensibilities, art/ music appreciation)
are not explicable by variations—i.e., multiple mutations or genetic
shuffling. My point? Evolutionary theory is just that: A theory.[6]

Hi-Ho
the Dario, the Monkey Stands Alone

Mind
you, Darwin hated his time at school and applied himself minimally.
He left Edinburgh without a degree; and, at Christ’s College,
Cambridge, where he studied theology, he earned what’s characterized
as an “ordinary” degree.[7]

Darwin’s
body of work was not wholly original, as one might expect. Instead,
its “borrowed tenets” were lifted from a poem written by
Charles’ grandfather, Dr. Erasmus Darwin. The latter practiced
an 18th-century, Frankensteinian pseudo-science (Galvanism) that involved
running electrical currents through corpses of dead animals to bring
them back to life.[8]

Though
Richard Dawkins insists that Darwin's theory is about as much in doubt
as "the earth goes around the sun,” reputable colleagues
(who, unlike Darwin, did apply themselves in school) disagree. In 1993,
a number of intellectually dissatisfied scientists representing a variety
of disciplines took a fresh look at Darwinism in light of ever exploding
scientific knowledge. What they came up with was irrefutable evidence
for Intelligent Design.

De
Facto Policy Built on Sand

Predictably,
their opponents countered; however, Intelligent Design explains what
evolution can’t. Biochemistry professor Michael Behe’s principle
of “irreducible complexity” aims for the jugular of Darwinian
theory. Behe explains that an irreducibly complex system is one "composed
of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic
function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system
to effectively cease functioning."

The
bacterial flagellum, for instance, is a propulsion system, driven by
a high-speed motor. Of its forty necessary structural parts, thirty
are uniquely essential and, in terms of timing, all must be assembled
precisely. Said parts cannot be removed or borrowed (co-opted). This
principle likewise applies to the ear, eye, and heart. To work as a
proper whole, none could possibly be the product of a slow, evolutionary
process.[9]

Subscribe
to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter
Your E-Mail Address:

Complexity,
coupled with discernable purpose, practically shouts design. In my view,
it takes more faith to embrace scientific Darwinism than it does to
acknowledge the sovereign Creator of our universe. But this is not my
thesis. More to the point, I challenge the theory’s king-of-the-mountain
monism. Never mind that modern DNA genetic chromosome research echoes
the Genesis account of man’s descent from one mother. Darwinism
is accepted as uncontestable fact, not theory. Notwithstanding documented
hoaxes and its Unitarian Universalist leaning, scientific evolution
stands today as de facto policy.

Having authored
the ABCs
of Globalism and ABCs
of Cultural -Isms, Debra speaks to Christian and secular groups alike.
Her radio spots air globally. Presently, Debra co-hosts WOMANTalk
radio with Sharon Hughes & Friends and hosts TRUTHTalk
radio, plus she contributes monthly commentaries to a number of Internet
news magazines. Debra calls the Pacific Northwest home.